mearls said:
People did not like the MMIV approach. OTOH, people liked the MMV approach.
I didn't like either; IV for the reasons you stated, V because it 'broke' the 3e design model by introducing 'trained' abilities which couldn't be actually learned. (A hobgoblin PC couldn't become a warcaster except by starting as one and eating the ECL). But I understand I'm in a minority here. At least V had a lot fewer lairs. But I digress...
In any event, 4e offers the same level as customization as 3e, so it's a pointless argument. If you liked making goblin rogues and troll fighters, you can still do that.
So my question, which is not intended to be snarky -- is there such as thing an adjective-less goblin/troll/orc, to which we can add class levels? Or do we start with a racename nounverb, and build onto that? (I assume we can do the latter; I'm wondering if we can do the former.)
Of course, the other problem is that PC classes now come with a LOT of options; adding 2 fighter levels to a 3e orc didn't do much to make running the orc more complex, but from what we've seen, doing that in 4e will make the DMs life a lot harder. From what I can tell, one of the things driving the different rules for monsters and PCs was that monsters *couldn't* be all built on the same rules as PCs and still be playable/usable -- they HAD to be simplified or the game would be unplayably complex (or monsters would be too weak, as the DM couldn't effectively manage the wealth of tactical options, not to mention that every monster would freely use their 'per day' abilities and burn healing surges like mad). So it's a bit of a red herring -- yes, we CAN build monsters with PC classes in 4e, but they really don't replace the specialized monster types for the bulk of encounters; we are much, much, better off using a 'Goblin Backstabber' than trying to use a Goblin with rogue levels in its place, assuming a typical encounter of 5 of them.
I use classed monsters in the bulk of my humanoid encounters; in 4e, for *practical* purposes, I'll need to use 'specialty monsters' and save the classed ones for special cases/NPCs. This isn't necessarily bad, but it *is* different.
For instance, in my ToEE game, I wanted a half-orc assassin. My first impulse was to stat him up as a rogue, but I ended up making him a servant of the water temple, gave him all sorts of water-based attacks (he turns into a water form to sneak into places; he kills by grabbing his quarry and generating water in the victim's throat and lungs to drown them; etc.) and building him as a monster rather than a levelled NPC.
I'll be curious to see which method DMs are using a year after the game's release.
I see the cool factor here, but it also makes my world builder head explode. I don't deal well, internally, with one-off creatures; I'd basically need to build a class, or at least a talent tree (or whatever they are in 4e) to satisfy my internal consistency needs. I see all the logical reasons and benefits for using different rules for PCs and monsters, but I find it hard to "let go" of the crutch of consistent design.
